So without exonerating the IPCC in this instance — there is no defense for
such shoddy work — let's attempt to inject a little sanity here.
Its hard to believe anyone but a true believer could take
such shoddy work seriously, and should call into question the critical thinking skills of anyone who did and their ability to evaluate climate related science.
Not exact matches
They are ultimately creating their own problems, though; with
such absurd budgets, expectations and deadlines developers are being forced to release
shoddy products, whereas in the indie industry developers
work with a tighter focus, honing their craft and putting out more polished titles.
They had no time for
shoddy work even with
such stringent (and unforgiving) deadlines.
That
such a
shoddy misrepresentation of another author's
work has been used as part of a baseless, politically motivated attack on that author is beyond shameful.
But wherever I look at climatology I see
work of
such a
shoddy standard that I would not accpet it from a filing clerk, let alone from a supposed «leader in the field».
A few however go ahead to accept
such offers only to produce
shoddy work.